Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do the right thing(TM) in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need(TM). Consider to what extent the criminal law r

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

'Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not turn a blind eye or fail to act to help someone who is in need'. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions reflects this view. Generally speaking, English law only punishes those who cause a prohibited act, although this may be a positive one. There is no general duty to act in order to do good deeds. There may well be a moral obligation on someone to be a 'good Samaritan' but there is not a legal one. However, Parliament and the courts find people criminally liable when they fail to act where responsibilities and duties of care are involved. It is not accepted that individuals should be criminally liable for failing to go to the assistance of those who find themselves in some kind of distress. Nevertheless, English law does punish those who fail to act under three situations. The first is where a statute actually imposes a duty. One example of this is the Road Traffic Act 1988, in which lays down situations where failing to act leads to an offence. This may be not stopping at a scene of an accident, found in s.170. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 also does this. ...read more.

Middle

The Public Office is relied upon to protect the public, and so it is expected that their job is to provide this service to the best of their abilities. A special relationship is another circumstance in which gives rise to a duty. In Instan (1893), the defendant went to live with an elderly aunt who became ill and for the last twelve days of her life, was unable to care for herself or summon help. The defendant did not give her any food or seek medical assistance, but continued to live in the house and eat the aunt's food. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter. A further case that emphasises this is that of Gibbons and Proctor (1918). Gibbins was the father of several children. There was evidence that his partner, Proctor, hated his 7-year-old daughter and had hit her. They both kept her separate from the others and deliberately starved her to death. They were both convicted of murder as Gibbins owed her a duty as a father and Proctor was held to have undertaken a duty to her. Both of these cases ensure that family relationships do owe a duty of care. However in Khan and Khan (1998), the convictions of manslaughter were quashed. ...read more.

Conclusion

Both of these cases show that the law does in fact promote citizens to act morally, but only in situations whereby they have caused the danger. It is generally believed that non-fatal offences against the person cannot be caused by an omission. In Fagan V MPC (1969) the court had to be creative in order to find the defendant guilty of battery. He was directed to park a car by a police officer and drove onto his foot. The policeman insisted that he got off but the defendant refused and said "fuck you, you can wait". He switched off the engine but eventually reversed off slowly after the victim repeated his request. The prosecution were satisfied that he "knowingly, provocatively and unnecessarily allowed the wheel to remain on the foot", and so he was convicted. It is apparent that the English Legal System does encourage the public to act dutifully to some extent. It seems that an omission can only occur where a statute imposes a duty, there is a contractual duty to act and in certain situations where the law states that an omission is an offence. These situations, however, are limited and only really involve circumstances where there is an evident responsibility. The law does not expect citizens to intervene and help strangers as such who are need. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

Related AS and A Level Criminal Law essays

However if the defendant is put at risk by performing his/her duty it should not be deemed reasonable that they would continue to carry out their duty of care due to the nature of their occupation. The Third category of omission is Duty under a Statute; sometimes a statute imposes

severe of injuries would constitute "serious" injury, with the remainder being downgraded to the category of "intentional or reckless injury". The proposed new offences of "reckless serious injury" and "reckless injury" will require proof that the defendant foresaw "serious injury" and "injury" respectively.

So those who attempt murder could be as potentially dangerous as those who murder, yet the sentences are both different, which is unfair as the point of the law is to protect the public from potentially dangerous criminals and from harm.

This is usually a parent and child relationship where the parent neglects to look after a child in their care. This occurred in the case of R V Gibbons and Proctor 1918 where a father of a young girl, along with his partner, deliberately kept the daughter separate from her

She claimed to have lacked the mens rea for theft, on the basis of absent mindedness caused by diabetes and depression. She had no recollection of putting the items into her bag. She didn?t even want the mincemeat as neither her nor her husband ate it.

Furthermore, there is a relation through the accepted rules for statutory interpretation. The rules of interpretation are; literal, golden and mischief rule. These rules are applied due to reasons as ambiguity, unforeseen situations, and even carelessness of the draftsman. Therefore, judges are supposed to interpret how the parliament intended to apply the law (Elliott & Quinn, 2011).

Both defendants were liable for manslaughter. The fifth duty is a duty through one?s official position. An example of this would be the case of Dytham, where a police officer saw a fight outside a nightclub, and decided to go off duty, resulting in him being convicted of misconduct in a public office.

In other words, no person will be forced to confess wrongdoing or say anything that might get them into trouble.The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affords criminal defendants seven discrete personal liberties which are the right to a Speedy Trial; the right to a public trial; the right to